What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
N9812S took off from Falcon field on 10/23/2009 about 10:30 am. When it had a bird strike to the outer edge of the l/h horizontal stabilizer. Pilot aborted flight, taxied back and inspected the damage. After inspecting aircraft damaged and consulting what he thought was an A&P, pilot decided to fly aircraft for repairs without a ferry permit or any entries in the aircraft maintenancc log. Pilot referred to NTSB 830.2 substantial damage section for for determining the damage, and airworthiness of the aircraft. Aircraft landed safely and repaired iaw the manufacturer specifications, AC43.13-1B and log entries made. Aircraft was returned to service. The pilot was asked to come to the scottsdale FSDO for additional counseling concerning his responsibilities and understanding of FAR 91.7, which states that the pilot in command is the responsible party for determining whether the aircraft is in condition for safe flight.
As the FAA filed it
N9812S TOOK OFF FROM FALCON FIELD ON 10/23/2009 ABOUT 10:30 AM. WHEN IT HAD A BIRD STRIKE TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE L/H HORIZONTAL STABILIZER. PILOT ABORTED FLIGHT, TAXIED BACK AND INSPECTED THE DAMAGE. AFTER INSPECTING AIRCRAFT DAMAGED AND CONSULTING WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS AN A&P, PILOT DECIDED TO FLY AIRCRAFT FOR REPAIRS WITHOUT A FERRY PERMIT OR ANY ENTRIES IN THE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCC LOG. PILOT REFERRED TO NTSB 830.2 SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE SECTION FOR FOR DETERMINING THE DAMAGE, AND AIRWORTHINESS OF THE AIRCRAFT. AIRCRAFT LANDED SAFELY AND REPAIRED IAW THE MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS, AC43.13-1B AND LOG ENTRIES MADE. AIRCRAFT WAS RETURNED TO SERVICE. THE PILOT WAS ASKED TO COME TO THE SCOTTSDALE FSDO FOR ADDITIONAL COUNSELING CONCERNING HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AND UNDERSTANDING OF FAR 91.7, WHICH STATES THAT THE PILOT IN COMMAND IS THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE AIRCRAFT IS IN CONDITION FOR SAFE FLIGHT.